Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Information Changes in DNA by logical Analysis
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 80 (531762)
10-19-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Jack
10-19-2009 3:40 PM


Re: Quantification
There aren't any bits in the genome there are nucleotides in them.
If you mean: if you represent the string of nucleotides using bits in an encoding where two bits represent each nucleotide (such as 00 = C, 01 = G, 10 = T, 11 = A) then why don't you just bloody say so instead of pointlessly shouting bits like an idiot?
I thought I did say that. But if anyone didn't understand what I meant by "bits" in the context of a discussion of information theory, and were too lazy to look it up, then they are free to ask me instead of, what's the phrase? "pointlessly shouting" that I'm wrong.
I might, of course, wonder why they were trying to derail the thread, given that we're meant to be talking about something else, but I would swallow this objection and explain to them what a "bit" is. And then refer them to the actual topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 3:40 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 80 (531767)
10-19-2009 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dr Jack
10-19-2009 3:36 PM


Re: A flawed mathematical argument?
None of which touchs on the point I made. Creationists aren't talking about arbitarily chosen DNA sequences; they're talking about the real coding sequences found in real genomes. That you could theoretically have a sequence one different from theirs is a trivial truth tangential to what they're actually arguing.
But what are they actually arguing?
You make a poor substitute for a creationist. 'Cos of not being one.
So far as I can see, post #12 is in fact a good argument against creationist silliness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 3:36 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 80 (531769)
10-19-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
10-19-2009 5:48 PM


Re: Weighing DNA
We know what information is, it's measured in bits, and so I can see no other method besides quantifying the bits to determine which has more information. Until shown otherwise I don't believe any other method exists.
But we don't need this other method to be produced. That's the beauty of the argument.
It applies to any measurement of "information" that satisfies the axioms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 5:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 80 of 80 (532212)
10-22-2009 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
10-21-2009 8:39 AM


Re: Must resist fist of pedantry... failing...
So what's the answer? Is there one? How do you help someone understand that new information can be created when they don't understand information theory or even have a useful definition of information?
You point out to them that even if they do not have a useful definition of information, then nonetheless any useful definition of information must at least fulfill the axioms stated in the OP.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 10-21-2009 8:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024